I just finished reading your "A Trip Down An Endless Road" response to Paul.
>>>We obviously are going down an endless road here. Just a couple of bullet points in response:>- instantiate means ... - a normative law is ... - virtual particles ... - an algorithm is ... - True, a CPU ...>- If physics is reduceable to mathematics, then what is the purpose of this feat other than show that the universe is caused by mathematical order? >- If you are a platonist, then aren't you committed to the existence of true mathematical statements? What makes those statements true? >- Any foundationalist view to the universe should be very simple and not add more concepts than are necessary. That is why I favor a view that shows logical statements emerging from an undefined phenomenal reality. It is very simple and doesn't require all those 'complex structures' that you are advocating. >- If God has an infinite past, then infinity exists. Are you really openminded to infinity as a real possibility? >- If algorithms do nothing ... An equation of a circle ... I agree that God ...[explains???] ... correlation between physics and math. >- "I hope I have helped you see the error in this belief." *smile*>- Why is your view talking about being simple? What is the reason that simplicity is important in your model of reality? >- True statements are simple. They are statements that fully correspond with phenomenal reality and are fully coherent with each other. The exact definition of how all that works is complex, but the concept itself is very simple.